| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Let’s not get into a situation that
only benefits the vendors who have adopted AutoMark. There are other
approaches, such as the one Populex Corporation has developed and there are
probably other ideas floating around that must be included. These constant self-serving
references to ES&S products are unacceptable to those of us who are
striving for an inclusive standard. From:
owner-stds-1583-disc@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-1583-disc@listserv.ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Deutsch, Herb My take
on the current situation. There is
one major thing that has emerged and thrown a monkey wrench into our standard
since it isn't covered. It is the existence and the active marketing of a
new configuration of voting unit. This type of unit does all that
the traditional DRE unit does except to store and tabulate ballots; certainly a
significant distinction. Its output is a paper ballot that requires a
separate traditional optical scan unit to read and tabulate the ballot
content. One example of this type of unit is the AutoMark which can be a
companion to the Diebold AccuVote, the ES&S M100, the ES&S/Sequoia
Eagle and an optical scan version of a punch card ballot tabulator. It
contains its own election definition that must match the election definition in
the ballot scanner. It is activated by inserting the same optical scan
ballot that can be directly voted by hand and determines the ballot style to be
used by reading the ballot identification code from the ballot. This
configuration is not covered by either the FEC 2002 standard or ours. ·
We should develop our characteristics matrix and create a table of applicable
requirements sections from the draft that we can either put in the beginning of
Section 6.0 as a testing guide or make it an annex and reference it.
|